Homosexual Marriage

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Wind So why are you against that?

I don't see any need for the government to be involving itself in people's personal relationships. That should be a private matter.

[Halofan48]

I don't see any need for the government to be involving itself in people's personal relationships. That should be a private matter

.

Marriage is a contract buddy.

[caphis]

Quote by: Halofan48 . Marriage is a contract buddy.

And for most legally binding aspects of marriage, I could enter into similar contracts with another man, but I just can't call it "marriage."

The part about "to have and to hold, til death do us part" -- that's the part that's personal. And should remain that way.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Halofan48 . Marriage is a contract buddy.

Marriage is an odd thing legally. A marriage is a religious thing but the marriage license is civil in nature. It seems to me that as a matter of religious freedom any two or more adults who want a marriage license should be able to get one.

What consenting adults do privately is definitely not civil in nature and that is what this argument is really about. I just can't make myself get angry at the idea of lesbians and gays having relationships.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Winter wind Give me a day yourmaster. Also, you might consider switching, now that we have derak wolff and maybe the bacon guy on the Anti-gay side. (I thought the bacon guy said he was against homosexuality, but was arguing for the other side for fun...)

I'm quite happy arguing for this side for a while, until Amnon or Dirty Name returns or a serious newcomer arrives.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Halo Marriage is a contract buddy.

A simple contract doesn't entitle people to tax benefits.

[Derek Wolff]

Nah, I don't have enough time to put up a strong argument. I just wanted to point out how they constantly try to tie it with genetics while enviromental issues are much more logical. I hardly have the time to read all this!

[Tycoon]

A simple contract doesn't entitle people to tax benefits.

I don't get how it doesn't? Marriage between heterosexual couples provides tax benefits.

[yourmaster]

fyi there are entire massive posts of mine that are anti-homosexual marriage. If anyone feels like debating feel free, if not just ignore.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tyke I don't get how it doesn't? Marriage between heterosexual couples provides tax benefits.

Which is why marriage is not, as Halo suggested, simply a contract.

[Tycoon]

Which is why marriage is not, as Halo suggested, simply a contract.

It is simply a contract, but a contract that entitles the couple to tax benefits.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tyke It is simply a contract, but a contract that entitles the couple to tax benefits.

So it's more than a contract.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties and thus doesn't entitle them to anything more than what either party is willing to give. Government marriage is an agreement between two people, but it also adds a tax break, given by an outside party, i.e. the government. Hence marriage is more than simply a contract; it's a contract coupled with preferrential treatment from the state for which the people in question have no more need or deservedness than an unmarried couple.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: yourmaster It is primary school biology that the dominant gene will not mix, it will dominate, hence the name, if SRY is present then the child will be male, levels of the gene are irrelevant. This article is also full of "may" and "might", all the more adding to that fact that sexual genetics is mostly an unexplored science.

Sorry, I got caught up in the longest test I've ever taken (five hours twenty minutes of pure "Government Comparative/US" hell.) Plus I had the SATs.

But I should have gotten back sooner.

This isn't a genetic component. It is a chemical component.

Quote by: New York Times The finding suggests that male homosexuality in these cases is caused by some event in the womb, such as “a maternal immune response to succeeding male pregnancies,” Dr. Bogaert wrote last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antimale antibodies could perhaps interfere with the usual masculinization of the brain that occurs before birth, though no such antibodies have yet been detected.

But regardless of the reason, it's obvious that birth order is a huge component. The more older brothers (doesn't matter if they grow up with the younger child or not), the more likely the next brother is gay.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/gender-studie...%20Fishman.pdf

This isn't really an argument for your side, but a biter analyzes of scientific...what's the word...hackery. It outlines the basis of the stereotype of homosexuals and how pathetic the reasons behind this concept were. It's an argument for my side more then anything.

This may be true, but it still remains that homosexual relationships last longer.

Is there any data on heterosexual relationships and not just marriage?
(because otherwise the data is asymmetrical)

Your link is broken.

Ah, dammit. This was the link provided with the journal. I'll find you another source that isn't so dead.

I fail to see how this is any more then coincidence, how does one persons marriage have an effect on another?

*smile*

well by that logic, why not make homosexual marriage legal. After all, one persons marriage has no effect on another.

I have to agree with this statement, as a lot of the articles I have read from reliable sources support this.

Aside from the debate for a second, I've heard arguments against it as well. An increase in children out of wedlock and stuff like that. So if you could post a source that disproves this, I would really appreciate it (It makes good light reading...haha).

Oh and even if it did, I almost could care less. The one child born out of wedlock I know was raised by an unusual, but incredibly loving mother (hippie but not really). The child is a freaking genius and a very nice person.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Winter wind This isn't a genetic component. It is a chemical component.

Pardon?

becomes male if the male-determining gene known as SRY is present. This dominant gene

Quote by: Winter wind But regardless of the reason, it's obvious that birth order is a huge component. The more older brothers (doesn't matter if they grow up with the younger child or not), the more likely the next brother is gay.

This article fails to cite any figures and fails to provide any citation at all apart from "studies done by ____", even when it does cite like this it fails to provide any follow up clarification, gives no sources to the original works it is basing the article upon. Moral of the story, don't use newspapers as citation in anything, chances are it was written by some journalist with no qualifications above A-Level in science and the writer has been given some 30 second explanation about what he/she is writing about.

Quote by: Winter wind This isn't really an argument for your side, but a biter analyzes of scientific...what's the word...hackery. It outlines the basis of the stereotype of homosexuals and how pathetic the reasons behind this concept were. It's an argument for my side more then anything.

You will find if you read the whole paper it is somewhat different, the beginning laughs at the idea of homosexuality being a mental illness, nearer the end the writer states that currently there is evidence of femminity in male homosexuals and masculinity in female homosexuals.
This is most likely caused by environmental factors, though this does not neccessarily mean it is a cause, it does insinuate a correlation between environmental factors that cause gender miscalculation and homosexuality.

Quote by: Winter wind Is there any data on heterosexual relationships and not just marriage? (because otherwise the data is asymmetrical)

I would have thought that marriage is a good enough indicator of relationship strength. I will find you citation and all that, but like you I don't have abundances of free time and have to rush this just to get it all done, so I apologise for that.

Quote by: Winter wind Aside from the debate for a second, I've heard arguments against it as well. An increase in children out of wedlock and stuff like that. So if you could post a source that disproves this, I would really appreciate it (It makes good light reading...haha). Oh and even if it did, I almost could care less. The one child born out of wedlock I know was raised by an unusual, but incredibly loving mother (hippie but not really). The child is a freaking genius and a very nice person.

No, of course being born and raised out of wedlock does not mean that the child will be a bad child or an unintelligent child, but it does not disprove a correlation, just because the correlation is not 1:1 does not mean it does not exist, I am saying that being raised out of wedlock increases the chances of children being rebellious or depressive, no one denies that being raised in a stable married family is the most beneficial.

[Winter wind]

son of a bee sting!

My post wasn't posted!

ugh, I'm doing this all over again.

Quote by: yourmaster Pardon? Quote: becomes male if the male-determining gene known as SRY is present. This dominant gene

The below is the main part of the article meant to back up my statement.

The finding suggests that male homosexuality in these cases is caused by some event in the womb, such as “a maternal immune response to succeeding male pregnancies,” Dr. Bogaert wrote last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antimale antibodies could perhaps interfere with the usual masculinization of the brain that occurs before birth, though no such antibodies have yet been detected. The fraternal birth order effect is quite substantial. Some 15 percent of gay men can attribute their homosexuality to it, based on the assumption that 1 percent to 4 percent of men are gay, and each additional older brother increases the odds of same-sex attraction by 33 percent.

That's chemical if I've ever seen it.

This article fails to cite any figures and fails to provide any citation at all apart from "studies done by ____", even when it does cite like this it fails to provide any follow up clarification, gives no sources to the original works it is basing the article upon. Moral of the story, don't use newspapers as citation in anything, chances are it was written by some journalist with no qualifications above A-Level in science and the writer has been given some 30 second explanation about what he/she is writing about.

It's in this Journal.
Blanchard and Klassen (1997). H-Y Antigen and Homosexuality in Men. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 185, 373-378.

and this one

Blanchard, R. (1997). Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females. Review of Sex Research, Vol. 8

You will find if you read the whole paper it is somewhat different, the beginning laughs at the idea of homosexuality being a mental illness, nearer the end the writer states that currently there is evidence of femminity in male homosexuals and masculinity in female homosexuals.

What, oh I'm sure of that. I'm not arguing against that (there is a change in sex hormonal reactions).

This is most likely caused by environmental factors, though this does not neccessarily mean it is a cause, it does insinuate a correlation between environmental factors that cause gender miscalculation and homosexuality.

thats a jump. How did you reach that conclusions?

I would have thought that marriage is a good enough indicator of relationship strength. I will find you citation and all that, but like you I don't have abundances of free time and have to rush this just to get it all done, so I apologise for that.

No problem. Take your time.

Oh and if heterosexual marriage is a good indicter of relationship strength, why not homosexual marriage?

I am saying that being raised out of wedlock increases the chances of children being rebellious or depressive, no one denies that being raised in a stable married family is the most beneficial.

No, but it isn't a mortal lock, nor visa versa with single parent families.

[yourmaster]

Gah this is hard, I've spent my whole life explaining to people why it's all ok and now I have to try and say why it shouldn't be.

Quote by: Winter wind The below is the main part of the article meant to back up my statement. That's chemical if I've ever seen it.

This is exactly my point you will find, it starts off describing a gene that causes the male genderisation. It then goes on to give descriptions of what can only be a chemical, thus not anywhere near a reliable source.

Quote by: Winter wind It's in this Journal. Blanchard and Klassen (1997). H-Y Antigen and Homosexuality in Men. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 185, 373-378. and this one Blanchard, R. (1997). Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females. Review of Sex Research, Vol. 8

Well I lack a copy of those journals so I'll trust your word that those citations are correct.

Quote by: Winter wind What, oh I'm sure of that. I'm not arguing against that (there is a change in sex hormonal reactions). thats a jump. How did you reach that conclusions?

Do I really need to go through citation about testosterone levels in male homosexuals?

Quote by: Winter wind Oh and if heterosexual marriage is a good indicter of relationship strength, why not homosexual marriage?

Again exactly my point, the figures you gave, which I need to add on I concede, showed both heterosexual and homosexual marriage stability, they showed that heterosexual marriages last longer, you then called for figures that were not only marriage, then I said that marriage was the best level standpoint for the figures, that's where we're at at the moment, this is a tangeant about figure reliability not homosexual marriage.

Quote by: Winter wind No, but it isn't a mortal lock, nor visa versa with single parent families.

I never claimed a 1:1 correlation, just that single families contribute to youth rebellion. This tangeant is about the strength of homosexual marriage, again I apologise for not finding those figures.

A little citation on homosexual marriage strength for now:
Gay Marriage Statistics - Gay Weddings - Same Sex Weddings | Love And Pride

See point no.3

[Derek Wolff]

If one credible scientific study has found a homosexual man that produces estrogen naturally in large amounts, I will believe its not a mental factor.

A simple contract doesn't entitle people to tax benefits.

The point of the tax benefits is to create a more stable and financially well-to-do family. That is why I do not believe homosexuals should be given tax benefits. If it ever becomes legal, when a homosexual couple adopts they will be given a tax break.

[Halofan48]

Quote by: Derek Wolff If one credible scientific study has found a homosexual man that produces estrogen naturally in large amounts, I will believe its not a mental factor. The point of the tax benefits is to create a more stable and financially well-to-do family. That is why I do not believe homosexuals should be given tax benefits. If it ever becomes legal, when a homosexual couple adopts they will be given a tax break.

Then heterosexual couples also shouldn't recieve tax benefits until they have a child.

[Tycoon]

The point of the tax benefits is to create a more stable and financially well-to-do family. That is why I do not believe homosexuals should be given tax benefits. If it ever becomes legal, when a homosexual couple adopts they will be given a tax break.

Like Halofan48 said, heterosexual couples get tax breaks regardless of whether or not they have children. Whatever rules apply to heterosexuals should apply to homosexuals.

[Tycoon]

Gah this is hard, I've spent my whole life explaining to people why it's all ok and now I have to try and say why it shouldn't be.

Then don't. It seems to me you are dragging out a debate of the finer points in this issue, rather than looking at the big picture of discrimination. There are plenty of other threads to debate on anyways.